Judge Sotomayor: a milestone nomination, but her record requires scrutiny

Tags:

Text Size

-

+

reset

RNC chair Michael Steele says despite Sotomayor’s background, Republicans will 'mount a mount a rigorous review of her thoughts on the role of the courts in American life.'
AP Photo

President Obama’s recent nomination of federal appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court is a historic moment in American history. The nomination of a Latina American to the highest court in the land is symbolic of the positive cultural changes taking place in America every day.

Though her personal story is remarkable, a thoughtful and thorough examination of her legal views is required. In that regard, Republicans will mount a rigorous review of her thoughts on the role of the courts in American life. Where we agree, we will say it. Where we disagree, we will say it loudly. Senate confirmation hearings serve as a platform to examine the judicial philosophy of potential Supreme Court justices.

Our founding fathers understood that a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court needed to be meticulously vetted; that the American public has the right to know her views of the law and the role of the judiciary that she would bring to the bench if confirmed.

The Republican Party will raise appropriate questions about Judge Sotomayor’s judicial background. For example, in 2005 at Duke University Judge Sotomayor stated the “court of appeals is where policy is made.” As a conservative who believes that the role of a judge is to interpret the law and not create it, this statement is particularly troubling. President Obama has specifically stated he picked Judge Sotomayor because she did not believe in legislating from the bench. Judge Sotomayor needs to explain this statement.

President Obama has also stated that judicial “empathy” is an important standard for Supreme Court nominees – the ability for a nominee to see beyond the facts of the case and personally indentify with people the ruling will affect. “Empathy” has no place in a court room, especially the Supreme Court. While every human being has the capacity for empathy, we trust the judicial system to base rulings on the law.

There is a reason that Lady Justice is blindfolded; she symbolizes that the judicial system is blind in interpreting the law. There is no room for personal feelings or prejudice in the court room. It is a place intended to be devoid of personal stories, designed this way to ensure the equal treatment of all people.

Does Judge Sotomayor share the president’s belief in judicial empathy? Or can she apply the law fairly and impartially without prejudice or bias in cases she may hear before the Court?

There have also been concerns raised about Judge Sotomayor’s courtroom temperament. Can she demonstrate a collegial working relationship with the justices, their clerks, and attorneys that appear before the court?

Finally, Judge Sotomayor needs to address her comment made in 2001 when she stated, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” Judge Sotomayor must explain this statement.

As the summer begins and these important confirmation hearings approach, Republicans will commit to give Judge Sotomayor a fair hearing. The privilege of being a Supreme Court Justice comes with an awesome amount of power and will not be granted without a thorough and rigorous review of Judge Sotomayor’s legal record.

Readers' Comments (55)

This is very well stated. The Republicans have an opportunity here - to show the Democrats how a confirmation hearing is supposed to be conducted. Please no grandstanding and holding forth with self-serving diatribes, like we continually saw from the Democrats during the Alito hearings. The Republicans also have an opportunity to demonstrate "true grit" by fearlessly examining Sotomayor's racist/sexist comment. Yes, that is what it was. She may have misspoke, that's fine. But a federal court appeals judge should know how to measure her words carefully - she certainly expects nothing less from the lawyers who appear before her and are routinely treated abrasively. The judge needs to explain how she could say such a stupid thing. No free passes to the Supreme Court. Its just too important.

You really need to stop calling anything Michael Steele writes "an ideas piece." To be honest, Steele hasn't really had any ideas in a long time. For a guy that everyone compliments as so creative and fresh, he's been pretty much a philistine. I think Republicans call people they don't understand "creative." I'm beginning to realize that "creative" isn't a compliment when it comes from the GOP.

Also, whenever you hear a Republican say, "our founding fathers," that is a good time to stop reading because nothing beyond that point will be anything but fantasy. For example, in this case, the founders believed the senate should simply make sure anyone nominated to the Supreme Court was appropriate, nothing more. Except for the Chief Justice, the other justices don't even have to be lawyers, let alone "soundly vetted" judges.

Justice Alito said something very similar regarding the empathy issue, and the GOP didn't have any problem with that. Now, suddenly, someone's personal history --a truly remarkable one-- is a problem.

This is rank partisan politics from a failed political party and a bozo of a party chairman.

The nomination of a Latina American to the highest court in the land is symbolic of the positive cultural changes taking place in America every day.

Unlike their Democrat counterparts that fillibustered a qualified American, Miguel Estrada for reasons that are unconstitutional - the zealous hate of the President by their far left wing base. The Republicans will ask questions and get answers, just like they are supposed to do, then they will vote yes or know to confirm, just like they are supposed to do. But all of this is something that is foreign to the likes of Chucky Schumer, the schmuck from New York. Also if the Republicans would have showed some balls and forced the vote they might still be in majority, but I digress.

The RNC already called Ms. Sotomayor a racist and incompetent, now they are screwed, they went so hard on her on the media that now they have zero credibility. Not only will she skate thru confirmation, republicans created a problem for themselves on opposing any future President Obama nominee for the SCOTUS. They have so highly politicized this nomination with outrageous and outlandish rhetoric so next time Americans will just tune them out, they will say "here they go again with the racist charges and below the belt attacks". Sotomayor's nomination has turned out to be a referendum on the republican party and it's bigoted attitude towards woman and minorities. And it represents another EPIC FAIL by the Party of Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh.

Come on people lets be honest,the reason republicans are dead set against abortion is because 85percent of the women who gets abortions are white women,there was 1.2million abortions performed last year,out of that 1million of those abortions was white women,since roe vs wade was overturned white women have had 32million abortions,minorities only 5million.white people are 62percent of the population in america,if roe vs wade wasnt overturned white people would have been 70percent of the population today,thats a hudge difference,in the republicans knows it,so i wish the mainstream media along with the republican party would be honest in just tell the truth,that the only reason they care about this abortion issue is because the white population is shrinking at an unbelievable rate,now if minorities was having 85percent of the abortions,the media or the republicans wouldnot care about abortion,in fact the republicans would be pro-abortion just think about it people.

Sotomayor's record HAS been scrutinized in nit-picking detail, by the cadres of lawyers and henchmen working for Steele and the GOP.

The best they came up with was "troubling", on some comments taken out of context and out of setting. That should tell you something about the quality of this nominee, and her sterling record as a jurist and Justice.

Kudos to the President: When you yank the white hood off types like Tom Tancredo, Pat Buchanan, Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly and their ilk, you do the world a service and shred the GOP's evil coalition so the world can be horrified at the collection of racists and hate-filled bigots that permeate that party.

I'm sure Chairman Steele had better things to do than having to go around with the fire extinguisher, trying to control the raging fires set by these lunatics, but there you have it: Today's GOP.

It's like a circus in Hell: Incendiary, irresponsible clowns and another clown for their firefighter.

OK, so you're "tired" of other Americans taking pride in their heritage or religious affiliations and apparently would prefer that they not exercise their right to identify themselves as they personally choose.

That's nice, but so what?

"Drift" wherever you want, but your criticism of what others choose to call themselves says more about you than it does about anyone else, quite frankly.

They will never agree, of course, but someone might point out that the definition of "law" and "policy" are quite different: by definition, the Appeals Court does define policy as it shows how a law is to be interpreted (that's policy).

Personally, I think it's sad that Politico would allow such precious space to be wasted on Michael Steele's hot air.

This is why conservatives are being stupid. If they were to somehow derail this nomination Obama would just select someone else. Do they think they're going to get someone they like better than Sotomayor?

Sotomayor may be the best chance the right has of getting a stealth anti-abortion justice. She's tough on crime. She has a real world background.

The political consequences of killing her nomination would be far greater for the conservatives than it would be for Obama. The hispanic population would rise as one against the entire GOP.

The smart thing for the GOP to do here is gradually embrace Sotomayor as one of their own. It is the only way they can come away from this nomination process with a win.

Too late. The Limbaugh/Beck/O'Reilley/Gingrich racist comments are the face of the Republican party and Hispanics and women won't forgive them. Wait until you see the 2010 Ads in Florida, Nevada, Texas where their are huge Hispanic voters.

Funny, Steele didn't mention the City of New Haven Case. I wonder if it is because they figured out that Latinos PASSED the test and she voted to affirm the City's rejection of the test. It shows she follows the law and is not going to give an advantage to her own ethnic group.

Also, the empathy stuff is nonesense. Just ask Bush Sr. who said one of the reasons he appointed Thomas was his empathy. The Dems will ask her if she agrees with Bush and the "issue" will fly away. They will ask her about the Latina woman quote and she will read the rest of the comment and it will go away. They will ask her about fairness and she will tell them how she has ruled in hundreds of case against minorities in discrimination cases and the issue will go away. They will ask about abortion and she will say she has not made up her mind and will decide each case on a case by case basis.

We will hear the right wing nuts scream and shout for a few months and she will be confirmed. I am predicting 70-30

I think what he is trying to say is that he is tired of people playing the race card, and politicizing their heritage. Notice how you immediately moved beyond this, and said that the person you are criticizing hates people taking pride in their heritage. This is a common strategy, note that during the campaign, many who criticized President Obama were labeled as racist, a result of the politicization of the race of the President.

Politicizing one's heritage and taking pride in it are completely different things. In a truly free society, one should realize that one's skin color or racial heritage is merely a small facet of a person, and utilizing your heritage to prevent others from truly examining other facets of your persona, including your thoughts and beliefs, is an injustice to both one's self and others.

I think what he is trying to say is that he is tired of people playing the race card, and politicizing their heritage. Notice how you immediately moved beyond this, and said that the person you are criticizing hates people taking pride in their heritage. This is a common strategy, note that during the campaign, many who criticized President Obama were labeled as racist, a result of the politicization of the race of the President.

Politicizing one's heritage and taking pride in it are completely different things. In a truly free society, one should realize that one's skin color or racial heritage is merely a small facet of a person, and utilizing your heritage to prevent others from truly examining other facets of your persona, including your thoughts and beliefs, is an injustice to both one's self and others.

Too late. The Limbaugh/Beck/O'Reilley/Gingrich racist comments are the face of the Republican party and Hispanics and women won't forgive them. Wait until you see the 2010 Ads in Florida, Nevada, Texas where their are huge Hispanic voters.

Funny, Steele didn't mention the City of New Haven Case. I wonder if it is because they figured out that Latinos PASSED the test and she voted to affirm the City's rejection of the test. It shows she follows the law and is not going to give an advantage to her own ethnic group.

Also, the empathy stuff is nonesense. Just ask Bush Sr. who said one of the reasons he appointed Thomas was his empathy. The Dems will ask her if she agrees with Bush and the "issue" will fly away. They will ask her about the Latina woman quote and she will read the rest of the comment and it will go away. They will ask her about fairness and she will tell them how she has ruled in hundreds of case against minorities in discrimination cases and the issue will go away. They will ask about abortion and she will say she has not made up her mind and will decide each case on a case by case basis.

We will hear the right wing nuts scream and shout for a few months and she will be confirmed. I am predicting 70-30